UN IPCC: To Be Trusted or Questioned?
You decide whether the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to be trusted on their interpretations of climate science and projections of future climate calamities.
CLIMATE ISSUE #1:
According to one of many official energy budgets for planet Earth, as used by the IPCC, our planet as a whole absorbs 239 W/m² of solar energy, which equates to minus 18°C, but due to the surface reflecting some of that energy straight back out again, the net amount on the surface is reckoned to be a only 161 W/m², which equates to minus 42°C .
Latest UN IPCC Earth Energy Budget has varying numbers – but the most important concepts remains unchanged, see below.
The actual solar power that the Sun sends to earth amounts to about 1364 W/m² when it arrives at the top of our atmosphere (TOA), some 20 km above the earth’s surface.
Due to the atmosphere itself scattering some solar power back into space plus the effect of clouds and a variety of airborne particles, it is generally agreed that about 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of that TOA solar power does not reach Earth’s surface, so we end up with 1364 × 0.7 = 954.8 W/m² actually penetrating the sunny-side of our Earth.
On the Equator, that amount of solar energy would heat the surface to 87°C.
Knowing that Earth is actually spherical and that a sphere has four times the area of a disc, climate scientists unfold Earth’s spherical surface to a flat plane and then cut solar irradiance by 4 times to compensate.
That division of solar power means that instead of having one half of the Earth in sunlight whilst the other half is in darkness and cooling off (= Reality), the IPCC scientists have recreated a mathematical planet Earth with a perpetual twilight Sun.
As per above, such a twilight Sun sends us 239 W/m² which equates to a frigid minus 18°C but when taking surface reflection into account, it amounts to just 161 W/m² bringing it to minus 42°C – all over the Earth, all the time (= Fiction). (That’s lower than the average temperature at the South Pole in February!)
This kind of interpretation has been accepted by scientists all over the world and has convinced politicians that they need to do something to prevent the Earth from warming by more than 2°C
if levels of atmospheric CO2 were to double.
The above depiction of the whole Earth in twilight is what climate scientists want us to believe, it is the basis of computer simulations that produce the dire predictions and what is actually taught in schools and colleges.
Mathematically this makes perfect sense to the experts who never step outside of their “thought-bubble” and realise that we have a day and a night which, despite being able to do so mathematically, can not be “averaged” into an ice-ball planet at minus 42°C.
It’s the same as calculating the “average” number of children per household, with the result showing that the “average” number of children is 2.4 per household ….
Have you ever come across such a child?!
What about the idea of cooking a meal for 6 hours at 10°C rather than 1 hour at 60°C. Mathematically it’s the same amount of power!
Not everything can be converted in a meaningful manner to an “average” or a “total power” number just because it can be so “calculated”.
You decide whether or not it is realistic to divide the Sun’s power by 4 to create an average solar input which does not reflect on the reality of having a day and a night.
CLIMATE ISSUE #2:
IPCC scientists and others have to resort to a clever trick in order to compensate for that alarmingly cold surface. They describe a “greenhouse effect” in which the atmosphere sends twice as much energy to the surface than the Sun does – a massive 342 W/m² in the latest IPCC’s Earth Energy Budget as compared to the 161 W/m² as seen in Fig.1 or slightly different numbers in similar Earth Energy Budget graphics.
The plumbing diagram above illustrates what IPCC scientists are proposing.
The secret is that mathematically you can conjure up anything you like in between the energy going into a system and the energy coming out of that system.
If these scientists imagine that OUT must match IN, but anything can happen in between, then why not a million W/m²? And why don’t we see power plants based on such a plan?
You decide whether or not it is realistic for the atmosphere to emit energy that is twice as strong as the Sun’s averaged input on Earth’s surface.
CLIMATE ISSUE #3:
The above mentioned greenhouse effect is deeply entrenched and even many skeptics agree that it exists.
The villain in the IPCC climate scientists’ plot, carbon dioxide (CO₂) – now in the guise of a thermal pollutant – is portrayed as enhancing the greenhouse effect, by creating the back-radiation that will send temperatures beyond human endurance.
Many people believe that this greenhouse effect is “like a blanket that keeps Earth warmer than it would be”. A blanket merely holds heat in, however, while the back-radiation from added CO₂ is regarded as a second heat source, making it equivalent to an electric blanket.
Energy is thus created out of nothing or better said “out of thin air” which is what the official diagrams all show – energy that is more than twice the Sun’s coming down from the atmosphere!
The only reason that such a greenhouse effect is created is because the scientists have taken an average satellite reading of the energy that Earth sends into space – an energy that amounts to 239 W/m² – and assume that this is equivalent to a twilight Sun shining 24 hours all over the Earth at the same time, making the Earth’s average temperature a cold minus 18°C.
There is however another average temperature for the Earth, based on a few thousand weather stations, at about 1.5 metres off the ground, spread out over the 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} or so of the Earth’s solid surface, but almost none in the oceans that cover some 70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of Earth’s surface and hardly any in the Arctic and Antarctica – this produces an average Earth temperature of some 15°C.
So, to sum up the situation, satellites give Earth an “average” temperature of minus 18°C and the weather stations give earth an “average” temperature of 15°C and that brings us to the third climate issue of needing a greenhouse effect that makes Earth 33°C “warmer than it would be”.
You decide whether or not it is realistic to make such calculations.
CLIMATE ISSUE #4:
According the official IPCC documentation, the amount of CO₂ that humans produce constitutes 3 – 5 {154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the total CO₂ in the atmosphere and that small amount is so powerful that it can warm the whole Earth up by at least 2°C if we keep on adding more of it to the atmosphere.
You decide whether or not it is realistic to state that the 3 – 5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of CO₂ from human origin can warm the entire Earth.
CLIMATE ISSUE #5:
According to some UN’s IPCC documentation CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for up to 100 years, yet other IPCC documentation on page 469 states: “The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about 15 to 40{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale.”, but much less according to many other sources (for larger image, click image for the source).
Below is a graphic illustration of the likely scenario.
You decide whether or not it is realistic to accept the IPCC figures about CO₂ residence time.
CONCLUSION:
All the above climate issues are the only cause for climate alarm despite each and every one of these issues having been dealt with scientifically over and over again.
Time has come for you to decide whether human produced CO₂ is a real threat to the planet or whether the climate scientists have sold their souls to the dark side of that same United Nations, to wit, Agenda 21 and similar documentation, for money and the sheer power of controlling the masses.
Is it all about downsizing the developed world, keeping the underdeveloped nations locked in an energy-poor economy based on near-useless solar power plants and wind turbines?
The carbon footprint of those allegedly “green” energy generators is huge and the recycling of those installations a veritable nightmare awaiting future generations.
And for what?
YOU DECIDE
If you agree, send this on to your local politicians and ask them to verify the facts laid bare here for the world to see. Below is a range of web sites with hundreds of scientific papers and essays that contain all the relevant and genuine scientific reasons as to why climate alarm over human CO₂ is a hoax – each and every climate alarm scenario has effectively been dealt with.
http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ http://www.tech-know-group.com/
http://climateofsophistry.com/ http://principia-scientific.org/
http://climatechangedispatch.com http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html
http://principia-scientific.org/two-new-studies-destroy-climate-crisis-greenhouse-gas-carbon-claims/
http://tech-know-group.com/essays/Are_They_All_Wrong_Then.pdf
The pdf version of this article is here: http://tech-know-group.com/
Trackback from your site.
tom0mason
| #
Excellent! Well said!
The IPCC is blatantly lie.
Sanity check —
All the energy coming to from the sun is all they have (left-hand side), so how come the planet has more energy (right-hand side). Basic principles say energy can not be created nor destroyed, only transferred/translated to a different form.
Your CLIMATE ISSUE #2: says it all and is (IMO) the easiest seen failure of the idiots’ cartoon.
Well done,
Keep-up the good work.
Reply
Hans Schreuder
| #
Thanks.
Reply
geran
| #
Good effort by Hans Schreuder.
Keep un-masking the hoax, it’s not dead yet.
Reply
Hans Schreuder
| #
Thanks
Reply
Squidly
| #
Neither … to be disbanded !!
Reply
Hans Schreuder
| #
Totally correct; just kept it “polite” for the sensitive souls amongst us.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Good article. I particularly like that you included Siddons’ “plumbing diagram”, for that is precisely what the “greenhouse effect” nutjobs want to force you to believe. And as I indicated to Dr. Dumbass below, if the IPCC “budget” diagram were true, then why in the world would we ever want to reduce the emissions of so-called “greenhouse gases” when we could take advantage of them and produce more energy! … but alas, nothing like a blatant, in your face, violation of physical law.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Dr. Pete, Greenpeace, and the rest of the climate clowns are very good at promoting bad science that is popular with liberal politics.
Everybody here at PSI is really good at discounting bad science that is unpopular with conservative political causes.
Neither side is good at promoting good science in general or discounting bad science in general.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hans, many scientific paradigms have underlying assumptions that are sacred to their true believers. The assertion that CO2 causes warming is such a sacred belief. Consequently, to a true believer the possibility that it is not true is incomprehensible to them. So, anything that contradicts this belief will be seen as heretical to them and they will ignore it.
So, Hans, even though what you say is true and even indisputable that is irrelevant to true believers. Human beliefs are much stronger than facts.
Let me give you an example that you may be able to relate to. It is factually true that H2O’s boiling temperature/pressure is consistent regardless of context. It makes no difference whether we are talking about pooled water in a pot or kettle or the smallest invisible nano-droplets suspended in the atmosphere. Both of these are liquid if their temperature/pressure is below the boiling temperature/pressure. This is empirically indisputable.
Meteorology’s theory of storms is completely dependent on the falsehood that H2O turns gaseous in the atmosphere. Without the assumed validity of this notion their theory of storms, the convection model of storm theory, is revealed as the nonsense that it actually is.
So, here is a little experiment you can do. Approach a meteorologists and ask them to provide you with reproducible experimental evidence that H2O turns gaseous in the atmosphere. They will not be able to provide you this evidence since it literally does not exist. But take note of the fact that they will never acknowledge that the evidence doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t matter what you do or say, they will never admit that there actually is zero evidence that H2O can turn gaseous in the atmosphere.
I think it would be educational to you if you were to take my advice literally. Literally confront a meteorologists and ask them to provide a reference to empirical evidence of the gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
I guarantee you that they will either (most likely) completely ignore your request or send you on a wild goose chase. But never will they admit that no such evidence actually exist.
Millions of Tons of Water Suspended Kilometres Above
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16597
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Doug Cotton
| #
Hi Hans. Firstly, thanks once again for your help and review of my 2012 paper. It’s a pity it was removed from PSI. Readers may still read it by clicking the links on the Home pages of my climate websites, one of which you may find by clicking my name above. These sites have been visited by about 100,000.
But Hans, the maximum mean surface temperature that mean solar radiation of 168W/m^2 (or thereabouts) can achieve is indeed about 233K or -40°C. It is a mathematical fact because of the T^4 in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, and any mathematician should find that easy to prove. Variable flux will never achieve as high a temperature as would uniform flux equal to the mean of that variable flux. It’s just mathematics, Hans. The dark side of the Earth is radiating energy to Space: where do you think that energy came from? Clearly it was from the Sun and so there was not enough used on the sunlit side to achieve a higher global mean temperature. You can’t count it twice.
The answer to the puzzle will only be found in my 2013 paper – nowhere else anywhere in all of world literature to the best of my knowledge. Yes, Hans, it may be time for you to read that paper, give it the tick and inform John O’Sullivan that I have been correct in what I first explained late in 2012. Postma’s paper is incorrect. Click my name above to read why on the “PSI Slayer ERRORS” page on that website, then visit the Home page and download that paper free of charge from SSRN.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
What is the time scale this cartoon represents for all these figures? Instantaneous? A day? week? year? million years? And from what start date?
On a planet were the human population has rapidly risen from 1 billion (200years ago) and is heading for 10 billion (before the end of the century), does humankind and all the food, water, and material needs, not require the sequestering of solar energy? Energy that is to be give back via chemical processes only in some the distant future. Where is that in the IPCC’s silly cartoon?
Reply
Dr Pete Sudbury
| #
I’m struggling to decide whether you are having trouble with chewing through the science, or are deliberately distorting it, in order to produce a juicy polemic. As an aside, most of your references are not directly to the IPCC, but to what other people have said about the IPCC. It is always better to check the original source, because someone else may have misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented it.
You probably do need to read the explanation of the energy budget diagram (fig2-1). This will clarify that it is a diagram based on observations (NOT a model), and it is titled “global mean energy budget”. Day, night, summer winter, poles, tropics are completely irrelevant, as are your statements about what the averaged numbers would mean for surface temperature. It’s like doing a budget for your yearly shopping. It really doesn’t matter that you spend all of the money when you are awake and in a shop. It’s an average across the year. That, I think, deals with your points 1, 2 and 3 (especially if you keep remembering it isn’t a mathematical model, its a diagram of observations, so, whilst you may not like the idea that the atmosphere radiates back to the surface twice as much energy as the average solar irradiation, that’s what the observations say…it is counter-intuitive until we recall that it might be something to do with the fact that the atmosphere is doing it 24/7, across the whole surface area, whereas, as you accurately point out, the sun only does it in daylight, and only at full power at midday wherever in the tropics it is directly overhead.
Turning to #4. percentage of CO2 emissions from human sources. The link takes me, not to any IPCC report, but to one whose author really doesn’t get it, but does give the IPCC figures on which I can comment. You’ve been generous, the actual proportion of anthropogenic CO2 comes out at 3% of emissions. Being generous also, I’ve seen a lot of people get confused by this. However, in essence, it’s very simple: in a system in equilibrium, any sustained addition to one side of the equilibrium will cause a shift in the balance of that equilibrium, which will continue until the addition stops. If I have an alkaline solution, and add acid to it, the change in the pH of the solution will be dependent on the total amount of acid added, whatever the time period I measure it over. Actually, in this case, a 3% imbalance is huge, especially since it is 3% per annum. Every year, we add 3% of the natural level, 30% in 10 years, a whole year’s worth extra in a 33 years. If there were no equilibrium changes in absorption, then we’d have doubled CO2 in that time, but as we know, the oceans soak up half of it, and as the “CO2 is plant food” brigade keep shouting, plants soak up some more. Look again at table 3, top line. The final column shows the annual increase at less than half of the anthropogenic emissions. 1% or so per year, every year, ad infinitum if we don’t change either inputs or outputs. That’s a very long way from trivial.
#5. Residence time. First of all, I don’t know where you sourced that inserted piece about transit time into the oceans. Did you notice that of all of the papers referenced in very small print with their effect sizes against that of the IPCC, the IPCC one was published 15 years after ANY of them, and up to 60 years after some. It takes a lot of work to leave out anything after 1992. So, first off, check if the science on absorption into the oceans has changed. Although, on second thoughts, dont! ….because the question isn’t “how quickly does a molecule of CO2 get absorbed by the sea?”, but “how quickly is it removed from the biosphere?” Gases dissolved in a liquid are in an equilibrium between the liquid and the gas, so unless the sea somehow destroys molecules of CO2 faster than it absorbs them, what goes in must come out again. We know the oceans aren’t very good at destroying CO2, because we know they are getting progressively more acidic. So it doesn’t matter whether the residence time is 30 years or 4 hours, as more CO2 goes into the oceans, more will come out. (Actually, it does matter what the residence time is, because if the absorption and release is slow, more CO2 will be trapped in water sinking to the bottom of the oceans, and that will further delay the rise in CO2). Oh, and as the oceans warm, their capacity to hold CO2 reduces, which isn’t helpful at present. On this vein, I just found this great summary of the carbon cycle, unfortunately this site doesn’t let us past tables, or I’d put in the table of the carbon reservoirs. http://climatica.org.uk/climate-science-information/carbon-cycle. Oh, and just followed your link to another Alan Siddons paper, where he assumes, effectively, that each year’s CO2 decays exponentially, by 50% each year, and demonstrates that, if that were true, the system would be remarkably resilient to increases in emissions. He kinda forgot that also means your carbon sinks have to grow very nearly as fast as CO2 emissions. He (and you) also conveniently forget that atmospheric CO2 keeps on increasing by 2-3ppm per year, with the rate of change increasing. Proving that your understanding of science says that shouldn’t be happening doesn’t really cut it.
So, in summary, I agree, IPCC should be challenged. But we do have to understand and check the observations, and then ruthlessly check the science used to explain them. Then we have to check our own challenges, because it is a bit difficult thinking that everybody else is making elementary errors, and that only a few brave souls have noticed, and you are one of them, and so 99% of the people who spend their lives studying this are complete idiots, as are civil servants, policy-makers, governments across the world. Doesn’t really work for me, especially as I can’t find anyone who can produce a convincing argument that the science or all of the observations are so flawed that we can ignore them.
Have a lovely day!
Pete
Reply
geran
| #
Hi Dr. Pete.
I always get a good laugh when clowns try to come out and spout their pseudoscience. Don’t you?
You stated: “You probably do need to read the explanation of the energy budget diagram (fig2-1). This will clarify that it is a diagram based on observations (NOT a model), and it is titled “global mean energy budget”.
So, Dr. Pete, if you actually believe that, could you link us to the documented data related to the 239 W/m^2, emitted to space. For example, which satellites recorded this data, over what dates, at what altitude. And what was the spectra of recorded data.
When you respond, I will be happy to continue to debunk your pseudoscience.
(Hilarious!)
Reply
tom0mason
| #
The IPCC position is entirely untenable and they know it.
From https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm
Add to that, they can not define the the properties and limits between natural climate variation and anything humans do, and that alarmist rhetoric of CO2 being bad for the climate (and the biosphere) is simply wrong, as historic evidence shows otherwise.
All-in-all the UN-IPCC horror show is just about creating alarmism for material gain, and nothing else.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Wow Dr. Dumbass!! … You solved the world’s energy issues! .. apparently nobody realized that the atmosphere mysteriously creates energy, all by itself!
So, if this is true, then why in the world would we want to curb “greenhouse gases” ??? … we could harness the extra energy radiated by the atmosphere and solve all of our energy needs!
Dr. Dumbass, respectfully, I have witnessed stupidity in my lifetime, but you are competing to take the prize!
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Guys, Don’t take any nonsense to heart from Dr Pete. In case you’re not aware Dr Peter Sudbury is none other that the Political lobbyist at Greenpeace. As we know, Greenpeace is averse to science and reason. See here:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/doctorpete/
Reply
tom0mason
| #
John O’Sullivan,
Thanks but my assumption has always been Dr Peter Sudbury was a herbal doctor, doctor of divinity or mythology, or some such. He obviously has had little scientific training because he spouts such irrational nonsense.
In his world the very air we live in is able to create energy from levels of CO2 — unscientific poppycock!
Greenpeas’ faith suit him I’m sure, for they believe humans are APART from nature, unlike the rational folk of the world who understand that humans are a part of nature.
Reply